當楊副庭長「一股歪風」名句一出, 一時間使用這名句也充滿揶揄地蔚然成風。上星期香港大律師公會為「一地兩檢」發聲明, 用了「閹割」一詞(emasculate)來形容人大的決定。(原句: 這完全漠視及閹割《基本法》第 18(3)條 下只有列於附件三的全國性法律方可在特區境內實施的規定) (英文版 : completely by-passes and emasculates the requirement under Article 18(3) of the Basic Law that only national laws listed in Annex III of the Basic Law shall be applied to the HKSAR)。一時之間又聽到一片閹割聲了。張達明發文用了「閹割香港法院違憲審查權」, 昨天元旦遊行, 遊行者高叫「守護香港、反閹割議會」。
今天明報刊出對大律師公會主席的專訪, 其中一段也提到「閹割」:
對於公會的聲明措辭嚴厲，例如用上「閹割」字眼，林定國說，發出聲明後有反思字眼會否很強烈，予人太情緒化的感覺、失去專業性，他說希望大眾不要聚焦在一兩個字眼和形容詞上，而是了解上文下理。
以捍衛法治的聲明而言, 「閹割」實在用得太煽情, 用剝奪/破壞(deprive/undermine), 可能會比較客觀和專業。又閹又割, castration的感覺太濃, 不應出現在專業的聲明裏。我當然不想聚焦於這字眼, 但在後續的評論及遊行標語一再出現, 就未免太刺眼了。不過, 公道而言, 問題出自中文「閹割」這兩個字, 用英文emasculate反而是在法律陳辭中並不罕見。所以, 這次是中文版翻譯的問題, 英文版就不算情緒化。也許用「貶損」來代替「閹割」, 聲明看起來會更加得體。
今天明報刊出對大律師公會主席的專訪, 其中一段也提到「閹割」:
對於公會的聲明措辭嚴厲，例如用上「閹割」字眼，林定國說，發出聲明後有反思字眼會否很強烈，予人太情緒化的感覺、失去專業性，他說希望大眾不要聚焦在一兩個字眼和形容詞上，而是了解上文下理。
其實用sodomize或者更貼切的anal rape 更合適
回覆刪除兔仔應找吳敏倫博士輔導你的傷痛。
刪除a*** ****係non-consensual bugg*ry。
刪除咁先係legal term。
HZ, 這個時候要給他treatment, 不是criminal law 101 lecture.
刪除HZ: i was aware of that term. yet 1 I am no Brit 2 better accurate than appropriate when it comes to 支那
刪除免仔, 40幾歲人, 別以10幾歲心智說話。
刪除1021 ： 兔兔一直是這樣的啦 只不過吳不見得能教兔兔什麽新事務
刪除我們公正不阿的法官，閹割 (emasculate)警方起普通法應有的權力，成功創造新職位叫阿婆敢死隊
回覆刪除就算比六百人圍，人家非法集會，都不能用武力清場。
元旦遊行阿婆敢死隊就正式出動
起阿婆敢死隊未死之前，警方都不能用武力
警方不敢執法，阿婆敢執法
錢禮這個阿婆果然去婦團爭取權益
以後起示威遊行清場行動暴動持械行劫中，老弱婦孺就會充當保安，守住前線
萬一有咩行動，阿婆敢死隊，就首當其冲
以後阿婆不用執紙皮了，阿婆做保安，和平示威多
裁判官閹割 (emasculate)得好，錢禮裁判得好。
香港的治安，全靠阿婆敢死隊
警方在普通法應有的權力是甚麼? 包括打人?
刪除雖然佩服朱大Sir臨退休都重企咁前身先示卒 (通常見到嘅係大Sir企到舞雷公咁遠，重要有個總幫adjutant傍住)，但果棍其實真係無必要… 一棍就打走啲長糧兼英名盡喪，好唔抵。
刪除最PeeKay其實係錢禮，使唔使抛佢呀？！重要上星期升堂做判刑時已經有哂CSO report，都夾硬係要拖到今日，等佢喺獄中過新年！有必要咩？！呢啲咪動動官囉！
肉隨砧板上
刪除正因此有市民對法官的質素覺得失望，而有需要監察法官的聲音出現。
刪除法官遇到危險會龜縮，警察就要正面面對
刪除法官判簡單案件都要幾星期，警察就要有幾秒做決定
法官判錯案無事及有大律師公會撐，警察就只有比人駡
法官比人正面駡可以判他監，警察比人鬧要硬撐
法官特權，警察無權
以後不用飛虎隊，機動部隊，只需要阿婆敢死隊
因為他們能得到同情
警察局可以被圍要封鋪，佔領馬路沒問題
唔做唔錯，一做必錯
可惜香港無投訴法官機制。。。
刪除但如果今次真係重判，相信上訴庭處理上訴時會鬧錢官亂咁黎。。。
狗官錢禮
刪除3:10, 有投訴及上訴機制喎!
刪除3:13, 華人法官你都一樣鬧狗官喇!
所以示威者都有freestyle ,他們是合法佔領旺角的
刪除以後警隊要清場，按檢控官的講法，要向法庭申請禁制令
只可以在該區域清場，不能使用武力。
其實不嬲清場都要拿法庭手令架啦!
刪除e.g.叫某一個人走, 只可以勸走佢
拘捕有清場作用, 才不需法庭手令, 夠唔夠膽用???
公會感情用事,為討好激進派連專業形象都唔要...
回覆刪除http://www.bastillepost.com/hongkong/article/2721272-%E6%9D%8E%E6%9F%B1%E9%8A%98%E6%89%BF%E8%AA%8D%E4%B8%8D%E5%B9%B3%E7%AD%89%E6%A2%9D%E7%B4%84-%E6%BF%80%E5%88%B0%E9%AD%AF%E5%B9%B3%E5%BD%88%E8%B5%B7%E7%9A%84%E6%98%AF%E4%BB%96%E8%87%AA%E5%B7%B1
回覆刪除連李資深大狀都玩潑婦罵街兼屈個死人,真係俾林太講中晒佢地...
政客有時會語無倫次。
刪除2018年伊始,一大堆SC出現響鏡頭前(連駱哥今日都出埋黎講兩句),而且個個都響度玩感性,玩罵戰...
刪除唉...睇黎2018也是多爭論的一年...想平靜怕且都好難...
駱哥都好有分寸。
刪除政客係“時時”都語無倫次，唔單只係“有時”… (applies to all politicians across the spectrum)
刪除李大狀話三個不平等條約有效喎，唔知大律師公會又支唔支持呢？
刪除https://hkgpao.com/articles/171653
回覆刪除呸! 誰才是井底蛙?
刪除膚淺的左拉西扯
刪除HKGPAO明乎其實～ plastic報…
回覆刪除膠都無謂, 講得出具說服力的理據就可以。
刪除嘩！
回覆刪除雖然三個月有得扣1/3
睇怕佢農曆新年都未出得返……
要坐埋初一, 甚至初二。
刪除太重啦...
刪除標少你估楊副庭長會唔會allow appeal against conviction?
有啲奇怪
刪除判咁重又要grant bail
本來以為要佢受咗先
Bail pending appeal? 潮流嘛!
刪除3:30, 這件案不論華洋印巴的法官, 點會唔釘, 刑期上訴會成功唔奇, 定罪就好難。
刪除Bail pending appeal，真正判刑的藝術
刪除LN,何出此言？
刪除已經保了出黎，錢官睇黎今次判刑十分奇怪。。。
刪除(拉左佢入去，判埋監，卻批准佢保釋)
退休警司朱經緯被判入獄三個月。 點解判咁重？ 佢應該係執行職務時判斷錯誤，用警棍打咗途人一下，都要坐三個月。
回覆刪除我覺得過重, 但很難說她犯原則性錯誤。
刪除最近法庭附近有種產品特別暢銷，我要真普選的傘以及我要真普選的黃衫，二百元一套，只要穿這些衣服，有罪變無罪，有罪的都變輕罪，聽講已經買左幾千套，老闆十分感謝法官對黃絲特別平等的判決
刪除佢睇黎用了7警做標準。。。
刪除即係話東北13子，雙學4友的判刑正確啦。。。
對於 朱警司 深感同情...
回覆刪除之前聽 標少 講過 退休金 長俸 由警隊話事...
如果警隊講過全力支持 朱警司
退休金 長俸 呢喲野 ...朱警司應該唔會有損失...?
個人情感係...唔希望一個退休人士臨退休之際...好似一鋪清袋甘...
希望係我自己因為同情而諗太多野出來啦...
唔明點解前線警員好似好低調，唔似好撑朱經緯。
回覆刪除我印象起新聞聽講...警隊發過聲明 全力支持朱警司..
刪除應該無記錯...
希望唔係單純一句說話來維持士氣啦...
因為朱sir個朵喺低層警隊唔太好，佢作為ptu校長，大部分低層警員受訓時都受過佢啲應該同唔應該嘅訓練要求。
刪除同時ptu校長係大型示威嘅最高指揮，歷年示威中，所有因指揮不當令前線硬食嘅問題全部都係入佢數。
Actus reus、mens rea 全部中哂，係啲低端人士，至會話唔使判監。
回覆刪除我自認是低端人士。我不爭議定罪, 一早已講無得打, 但點解一定判監?
刪除中唔中，係個官話嘅啫，佢口大，佢話中咪中未囉。
刪除Actus reus、mens rea 中哂使定罪成立, implies the judgement, not the sentence.
刪除定罪無可置疑，但判即時監禁三個月？？錢禮應該退休啦… 老人痴呆…
刪除原來彭彼得識講廣東話
回覆刪除佢係香港長大的。
刪除受害人落的口供與法庭上講的口供與醫生的口供傷勢不一致
回覆刪除受害人對警隊在案件發生之前已有敵意
這些是否合理疑點在乎被告是黃絲定藍絲
警察犯法，加刑因素
法官檢控官律師法律教授知法犯法，非加刑因素
法律面前真係人人平等
朱經緯案, 前面三幾行, 因為有片的出現, 是直接證據, 足以排除前三行的作用。
刪除警察犯法並不是加刑因素,「知法犯法、罪加一等」與「不知者不罪」一樣, 留在包青天年代。
警察知法犯法, 請留意, 是減唔到刑因素。 甚麼一時錯手/為公事/壓力, 因為訓練專業(即知法), 一概offset晒。
我無睇判詞不知道細節, 普通襲擊(打下交,40條)可根據案情(推撞)不必特別求情也容許監禁以外刑罰, 不過襲擊致傷害(39條)比較嚴重, 雖然沒有即時收監指引, 但沒有有效求情減刑因素, 呢條罪不嬲都要坐。
有時功績貢獻是減刑因素, 看來今次沒有比重。
結論是: 減唔到刑。
受害人落的口供與法庭上講的口供與醫生的口供傷勢不一致<咁嗰棍究竟有冇打到落肉先？
刪除受害人對警隊在案件發生之前已有敵意<如果冇敵意又會點？
合理疑點在乎被告是黃絲定藍絲<被告的政治立場係點同有冇打到嗰棍有咩關係？同埋政治立場點解係疑點？
Accordingly, an officer who used reasonable force to prevent
回覆刪除individuals from breaching the restrictions would be preventing the commission of offences
and would fall within the ambit of s.3 Criminal Law Act 1967. This would include, for
example, force used to disperse a demonstration which had exceeded a restriction on
duration, or force used to prevent demonstrators from entering an area which had been
excluded by a restriction
Use of force at common law: Certain powers and duties of the police are derived from the
common law. In Rice v Connolly [1966] 2 Q.B. 414, Lord Parker CJ set out some of the
more obvious ones:
"It is also in my judgment clear that it is part of the obligations and duties of a police
constable to take all steps which appear to him necessary for keeping the peace, for
preventing crime or for protecting property from criminal injury. There is no exhaustive
definition of the powers and obligations of the police, but they are at least those, and
they would further include the duty to detect crime and to bring an offender to justice. "
Certainly it is an established principle of
common law that the police have a duty to prevent breaches of the peace. This duty was
summarised by Lord Bingham in the leading case of R. (on the application of Laporte) v
Chief Constable of Gloucestershire [2006] UKHL 55; [2007] 2 A.C. 105 at 124:
"Every constable, and also every citizen, enjoys the power and is subject to a duty to
seek to prevent, by arrest or other action short of arrest, any breach of the peace
occurring in his presence, or any breach of the peace which (having occurred) is likely to
be renewed, or any breach of the peace which is about to occur.
Other action short of arrest" can include the use of reasonable force. Indeed, in the earlier
leading case of Albert v Lavin [1982] A.C. 546, Lord Diplock made that explicit:
"...a police officer, reasonably believing that a breach of the peace is about to take place,
is entitled to take such steps as are necessary to prevent it, including the reasonable
use of force..."The main limitation to this power is that the actions taken must be necessary to prevent a
breach of the peace. Further, where there is only an apprehended, future breach of the
peace rather than an actual breach occurring at the time, the person must have a
reasonable belief that the breach is about to occur. "About to" in this case has been construed quite narrowly, such that a breach must reasonably be considered to be imminent
before preventative action will be lawful (see R (Laporte) above). As to what actually
constitutes a "breach of the peace", a frequently cited definition is that given by the Court of
Appeal in R. v Howell (Errol) [1982] Q.B. 416 at 427:
"There is a breach of the peace whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to
a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed
through an assault, an affray, a riot, an unlawful assembly or other disturbance."For the purposes of demonstrations and other public order situations, these authorities
provide quite a wide power for the police. Given that "breach of the peace" has quite a
broad definition, and that demonstrations are frequently quite lively and dynamic
environments, police will often be able to justify use of force and arrests on the basis of
preventing a breach of the peace. This is particularly so as courts tend to give a
considerable amount of leeway to police officers who have to act in the heat of the moment.
Even in R (Laporte), where the police's actions were ultimately held to be unlawful, Lord
Bingham noted that:
"I would acknowledge the danger of hindsight, and I would accept that the judgment of
the officer on the spot, in the exigency of the moment, deserves respect. "
"an officer who used reasonable force to prevent..." speaks for itself. Does it apply to Chu's case?
刪除What is reasonable force? A common feature to all of the above powers is that any force
刪除used must be reasonable. What amounts to reasonable force depends on the facts of each
case. In determining whether the force used was reasonable, a court will have reference to
all the circumstances such as the degree of force used, the degree of violence or disorder
pertaining at the time and whether any alternative courses of action were available. As
reasonable force is very much case specific, there are no hard and fast rules that have
been set down, in either legislation or case-law, as to what constitutes reasonable force
why it was not reasonable ? the police station had to close because of the unlawful assembly, the unlawful assembly was happening more than 3months,
Lord Bingham noted that:
"I would acknowledge the danger of hindsight, and I would accept that the judgment of the officer on the spot, in the exigency of the moment, deserves respect. "
打人就打人, 無合理辯解俾人告都無奈 ,罪成是預見結果, 但判刑真係判得過重, 攞報告唔俾擔保, 辯方求情又要再押後, 多拘留幾日, 合共扣押16日, 好懷疑有偏見心態!
回覆刪除用彭彼得是失算 !
零執法就零違法
回覆刪除裁判官現在好慘
每日十點開庭，中午休息二小時，五時收工，有時仲可以學畫畫，真係好多野要做。
中國的法官就沒有法治，十二月三十一日都要開庭，晚上十點仍在法庭
所以以後有人非法示威，不用以前一樣，警告一個小時
世界標準是不警告。非法示威零拘捕零執法
有人搶劫有人打法官，要先警告十幾分鐘
綁架持械行劫都唔可以用搶，要警告再警告
有人拿刀斬人，要警告要警告
有傷有害，最好有死亡才執法
否則就會比人告
以後清場辛苦野，最好交比阿婆敢死隊
七老八十，拿住拐杖，最好傷殘
同班裁判官一樣有殘，但裁判官就係腦殘，同自己同類，法官自然懂判
錢禮法官真經典，全球國家，都不會告朱經緯，不會告他罪成
香港恥終有你
全球國家，都不會告朱經緯
刪除你確定???????
//全球國家，都不會告朱經緯，不會告他罪成//
回覆刪除最可悲政府高層都唔撑自己友，李家超早排仲話指引足夠。
據Google隨手第一版, 是李家超指警隊的指引清晰. 被問另外的查手機指引法律基礎, 李家超答會研究判辭.
刪除顯示出無論足唔足夠, 內容脫節!
李家超答指引清晰, 即是教錯前線! 真係大件事!
所以引來咁大爭議、期望落差、士氣低落、"政府高層都唔撑自己友"、百病叢生...
真替朱經緯難過，一個小錯誤，竟換來如此嚴重後果。
回覆刪除但更多知法犯法的人就獲得輕判，甚至逍遙法外!
BILL 老大： no one is happy with the sentence of 3 months imprisonment. which would suggest its an appropriate and just sentence, kudos to Bina.
回覆刪除